Karl Keating's E-Letter of November 13, 2007

[planter654]

I believe the years do not matter, don't you think? I believe Jesus generation has not ended, not till all the gentles are in, don't you think? I believe in the seasons- harvests. Yahweh is eternal. When the final harvest is ready only Yahweh knows. Yahweh's Kingdom will never end! Dates,years are not important but that we all seek to become "Holy" for our father is 'Holy" We were created from "LOVE" to become "LOVE" to serve "LOVE"--Thanks

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by planter654

Thanks-- Why are we not calling, God-- Yahweh?

In answer to your question: Because Jesus usually called God - Father or Lord (think Our Father), and we follow Jesus' example. When the Bible speaks about invoking God's name, sometimes it's meant literal (Yahweh), but sometimes it's meant more general (invoke me). I assure you, saying "God da...t" is still taking the Lord's name in vain even though you're not saying Yahweh. It is meant in the more general sense..

[AnthonyM2]

Originally Posted by qmvsimp

In answer to your question: Because Jesus usually called God - Father or Lord (think Our Father), and we follow Jesus' example. When the Bible speaks about invoking God's name, sometimes it's meant literal (Yahweh), but sometimes it's meant more general (invoke me). I assure you, saying "God da...t" is still taking the Lord's name in vain even though you're not saying Yahweh. It is meant in the more general sense..

Thank you. That's similar to what I was thinking. I was going to say that as Christians we tend to think of Jesus as the name of God also, or the second person of Holy Trinity at least. I suppose we can think of God the Father as Yahweh, unless that name would cover all three Persons, I'm not sure.

Anyway, the name Yahweh was considered so sacred by the Israelites that it was never to be spoken except by the High Priest in the Holy of Holies on the Yom Kippur, I believe. That's why we're not even sure how it is correctly pronounced because in Hebrew they don't use vowels, so it was YHWH, people used to think it was Jehovah but it might be more correctly pronounced Yaweh but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

I'll see if I can find and post a link to back up what I'm saying.

[Kristopher]

Originally Posted by Petergee

You're a bit confused. The years are NOT numbered from the Crucifixion ... Every book, newspaper, magazine etc exclusively used BC and AD until quite recently, ... And with your suggestions about the winter solstice and the vernal equinox you are forgetting about us poor souls in the Southern Hemisphere for whom those dates are the summer solstice and the autumnal equinox.

The Crucifixion was brought-up because of it's relevance to BC/AD, I made no mention, or even thought to mention, that the BC/AD designator was based on the Crucifixion. I spoke from my own point of view, that BC/AD is not widely used, but within writings which concern theology--it is more frequently found, by myself, which speaks nothing at all about how recent of a development it is, or is not: I could care less about when it was more frequently used, or was not more frequently used; like I said, from my own experience--it isn't used very often. You have one copyrighted cartoon, published by a variety of papers titled "BC", and probably less well known than Ronald Mc Donald. So far as northern hemisphere's or southern hemisphere's are concerned--I stated my preference; why on earth do you think that I would care at all to go by a southern hemisphere year based on equinoxes and solstices; when I live in the Northern Hemisphere? Why should I even think about those going by equinoxes, or solstices in a Southern Hemisphere; when I stated my preference.

I am neither confused about BC/AD being designated by some approximation of Jesus' birth, nor am I forgetful of those in the Southern Hemisphere, and the difference in seasons.

Definitely a bit angered by your comments here; I dislike being called "confused" and "forgetful" about matters, which I was neither, and it seems you could have known rather easily that I was neither, or that my memory of the Southern Hemisphere is at all relevant to my preference; though, I do appreciate you giving some historical significance about GMT/UCT and usage of BC/AD within a variety of publications; however much I was already aware of the points--I still maintain my view, that it is out of use, and not particularly significant, but mostly a matter of curiousity. I have no intention of diminishing the significance of curiousity.

I was not familiar with where you are located, but enjoy the end of spring, and the beginning of summer; unless you plan to make a trip to the snow out here to ski, or board: we get quite a bit of that out here--Europeans, and Australians, etc.

I could care less about it being atheists, jews, militant or otherwise that developed BCE/CE. SO WHAT if they were militant, Jewish, and/or atheists? Is this designator effective at communicating a particular period of time, two periods of time, actually, without lending much thought to religion, or historical events that may only signify the prosecution against a criminal, as opposed to the murder of God? It's a straightforward question--you seemed to avoid the point about there being a need, with as much global infrastructue in place as there is now, and the point about the American government being secular and responsible to educating far more than Christians.

[Kristopher]

Originally Posted by JustMeAgain

I don't like seeing C.E. and B.C.E. any more than Karl does. I'm even seeing it in books written for Catholics now. So, I now define the initials to mean: "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era".

Clever. I like it. I'll remember it. Maybe I'll have to memorize your number here: 2997415, to give you credit: I don't think that I could admit to your acronym as credit belonging to "just me again".

[planter654]

I believe when you honour the Father, Yahweh, we honour the son and Holy Spirit! All are "ONE". When we honour our Blessed Mother we honour our Father, the son and Holy Spirit! When we honour the son, Jesus we honour the Father, Holy Spirit, our Blessed Mother, all who dwell in God's Kingdom also share in that joy and honour for all are "ONE"!! When someone honour's someone you love do they not also honour you? Do you not also share in that honour and joy? We are all to become "HOLY" what?

A house divided cannot stand! right? There is no division in God's house all are "ONE".

I believe Jesus prayer at the last supper was beautiful! Prayer to me as Jesus showed me is conversation, Praising, thanking, talking, asking etc.

As Jesus prayed at the last supper in asking--
that they (apostles, us also) be "ONE" in him as I am "ONE" in you ( Yahweh, father). Jesus repeats this a couple of times. In the end there is only "ONE" God, "ONE" Kingdom, "ONE" Church "ONE" FAMILY, "ONE" Body, but we are all "ONE" but many members of the "ONE" body. Jesus is the High Priest forever over the whole of the body, don't you think? Where ever Yahweh places us in his Kingdom, for Jesus said: My father has many mansions.

There is only "ONE" thought-- Yahweh-- all are "ONE" move as "ONE" with the same "ONE" thought, desire and will of the Father Yahweh, don't you think? In order to become "ONE" with the Father who is all "HOLY" we too must become "HOLY". For what does good have in common with evil. There would not be one but Two! A house divided that could not stand.

There is no "ONEness" in this world, there is no peace!
Thanks

[planter654]

I believe when you honour the Father, Yahweh, we honour the son and Holy Spirit! All are "ONE". When we honour our Blessed Mother we honour our Father, the son and Holy Spirit! When we honour the son, Jesus we honour the Father, Holy Spirit, our Blessed Mother, all who dwell in God's Kingdom also share in that joy and honour for all are "ONE"!! When someone honour's someone you love do they not also honour you? Do you not also share in that honour and joy? We are all to become "HOLY" what?

A house divided cannot stand! right? There is no division in God's house all are "ONE".

I believe Jesus prayer at the last supper was beautiful! Prayer to me as Jesus showed me is conversation, Praising, thanking, talking, asking etc.

As Jesus prayed at the last supper in asking--
that they (apostles, us also) be "ONE" in him as I am "ONE" in you ( Yahweh, father). Jesus repeats this a couple of times. In the end there is only "ONE" God, "ONE" Kingdom, "ONE" Church "ONE" FAMILY, "ONE" Body, but we are all "ONE" but many members of the "ONE" body. Jesus is the High Priest forever over the whole of the body, don't you think? Where ever Yahweh places us in his Kingdom, for Jesus said: My father has many mansions.

There is only "ONE" thought-- Yahweh-- all are "ONE" move as "ONE" with the same "ONE" thought, desire and will of the Father Yahweh, don't you think? In order to become "ONE" with the Father who is all "HOLY" we too must become "HOLY". For what does good have in common with evil. There would not be one but Two! A house divided that could not stand.

There is no "ONEness" in this world, there is no peace!

This is my son "IN" whom I am well pleased.

Thanks

[YADA]

Originally Posted by Ross B

Does it mean I am 5 years younger now (yippee) or 5 years older (bummer)? I am so confused by this.

You are neither younger nor older but the same age.....You still entered time at the same point no matter what the calendar year and the same amount of time has passed .......

[Petergee]

Originally Posted by Kristopher

The Crucifixion was brought-up because of it's relevance to BC/AD, I made no mention, or even thought to mention, that the BC/AD designator was based on the Crucifixion. I spoke from my own point of view, that BC/AD is not widely used, but within writings which concern theology--it is more frequently found, by myself, which speaks nothing at all about how recent of a development it is, or is not: I could care less about when it was more frequently used, or was not more frequently used; like I said, from my own experience--it isn't used very often. You have one copyrighted cartoon, published by a variety of papers titled "BC", and probably less well known than Ronald Mc Donald. So far as northern hemisphere's or southern hemisphere's are concerned--I stated my preference; why on earth do you think that I would care at all to go by a southern hemisphere year based on equinoxes and solstices; when I live in the Northern Hemisphere? Why should I even think about those going by equinoxes, or solstices in a Southern Hemisphere; when I stated my preference.

I am neither confused about BC/AD being designated by some approximation of Jesus' birth, nor am I forgetful of those in the Southern Hemisphere, and the difference in seasons.

Definitely a bit angered by your comments here; I dislike being called "confused" and "forgetful" about matters, which I was neither, and it seems you could have known rather easily that I was neither, or that my memory of the Southern Hemisphere is at all relevant to my preference; though, I do appreciate you giving some historical significance about GMT/UCT and usage of BC/AD within a variety of publications; however much I was already aware of the points--I still maintain my view, that it is out of use, and not particularly significant, but mostly a matter of curiousity. I have no intention of diminishing the significance of curiousity.

I was not familiar with where you are located, but enjoy the end of spring, and the beginning of summer; unless you plan to make a trip to the snow out here to ski, or board: we get quite a bit of that out here--Europeans, and Australians, etc.

I could care less about it being atheists, jews, militant or otherwise that developed BCE/CE. SO WHAT if they were militant, Jewish, and/or atheists? Is this designator effective at communicating a particular period of time, two periods of time, actually, without lending much thought to religion, or historical events that may only signify the prosecution against a criminal, as opposed to the murder of God? It's a straightforward question--you seemed to avoid the point about there being a need, with as much global infrastructue in place as there is now, and the point about the American government being secular and responsible to educating far more than Christians.

You seem an angry bloke Kristopher. I'm sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to imply that you are forgetful and confused in general. I maintain my main point that until very recently BC/AD was far more often used than "BCE/CE" in virtually all contexts. I accept that your personal experience is to the contrary.

[Pier]

Originally Posted by Kristopher

The Crucifixion was brought-up because of it's relevance to BC/AD, I made no mention, or even thought to mention, that the BC/AD designator was based on the Crucifixion. I spoke from my own point of view, that BC/AD is not widely used, but within writings which concern theology--it is more frequently found, by myself, which speaks nothing at all about how recent of a development it is, or is not: I could care less about when it was more frequently used, or was not more frequently used; like I said, from my own experience--it isn't used very often. You have one copyrighted cartoon, published by a variety of papers titled "BC", and probably less well known than Ronald Mc Donald. So far as northern hemisphere's or southern hemisphere's are concerned--I stated my preference; why on earth do you think that I would care at all to go by a southern hemisphere year based on equinoxes and solstices; when I live in the Northern Hemisphere? Why should I even think about those going by equinoxes, or solstices in a Southern Hemisphere; when I stated my preference.

I am neither confused about BC/AD being designated by some approximation of Jesus' birth, nor am I forgetful of those in the Southern Hemisphere, and the difference in seasons.

Definitely a bit angered by your comments here; I dislike being called "confused" and "forgetful" about matters, which I was neither, and it seems you could have known rather easily that I was neither, or that my memory of the Southern Hemisphere is at all relevant to my preference; though, I do appreciate you giving some historical significance about GMT/UCT and usage of BC/AD within a variety of publications; however much I was already aware of the points--I still maintain my view, that it is out of use, and not particularly significant, but mostly a matter of curiousity. I have no intention of diminishing the significance of curiousity.

I was not familiar with where you are located, but enjoy the end of spring, and the beginning of summer; unless you plan to make a trip to the snow out here to ski, or board: we get quite a bit of that out here--Europeans, and Australians, etc.

I could care less about it being atheists, jews, militant or otherwise that developed BCE/CE. SO WHAT if they were militant, Jewish, and/or atheists? Is this designator effective at communicating a particular period of time, two periods of time, actually, without lending much thought to religion, or historical events that may only signify the prosecution against a criminal, as opposed to the murder of God? It's a straightforward question--you seemed to avoid the point about there being a need, with as much global infrastructue in place as there is now, and the point about the American government being secular and responsible to educating far more than Christians.

I'm responding to the print in bold.

Most people are Christians - when correctly applied, (I'm not talking about corrupt individuals) - Christianity slights no one.

[Kristopher]

Originally Posted by Pier

... Most people are Christians - when correctly applied, (I'm not talking about corrupt individuals) - Christianity slights no one.

I'm not a moderator, but I'm thinking you maybe are ignorant about quoting other people's posts: it's supposed to be quite limited--I say this, with the intent, that you will be saved whatever embarassment might occur with the visit of a moderator. There is specific info. about this at one of the "sticky" links; I tend to read them with our without admonishment from moderators. I beleive a few sentences, or no more than three rather short paragraphs is the limit, that having been said--what you wrote is vague: are you saying, most Americans are Christians; most of the world is populated by Christians; most developed countries are Christian?

Your point: " ... Christianity slights no one. ... ", to me this is a bit laughable, without any real regard for how it is applied--take for instance Jesus, (No matter your opinion about his religion: he is a Jew.), when he was approached, that his family had been calling for him; he retorted: who is my family, but those who do the will of God. This according to the footnotes, (Dangerous ground to trod; I know.), in the New American Bible (NAB), says, he did this as a consequence of much, being spoken against him at the time, by his family, friends, and others--he went ahead and gave it right back to 'em: you're no family of mine, unless you do the will of God. The way I interpret those verses, both according to the verses, and according to the footnotes on the verses is this: Christians, given Jesus as the one whom they are to imitate with respect to keeping God's Commandments, and living the Beatitudes are concerned--slight others; it's a funny thing to answer the question asked some years back, (Seems like a decade now.): What would Jesus do: slight others when slighted.

This may change my point of view, with respect to a global infrastructure, and the fact, that Buddhists find the single most important event in their lives to be the birth of Buddha--hence their dating system in Thailand being around this date, and in many Islamic countries: the date is Mohammed's birthdate for their years and therefore, it would seem, that a date to coordinate countries involved with the United Nations, for appointments, travel, and plans, etc. should go by some date free of associations with such historical events as concern religion: maybe the date of their own creation, sometime back in the 1940's; though, I understand: the essential basis for the U.N. as a blueprint was something developed to resolve both the thirty years of war, and the 100 years of war between Catholics and the Reformers--all Christian nations should get along; someone submissive to a monarch, once thought. Perhaps the completion of the draft of such a document, should be the date. I have no idea that there was anything just in those wars, particularly on the side of the Catholic Church at the time.

I know, that in the South of America, once Confederate states still refer to historical events as "before the surrender", and "after the surrender".

In anycase, your quote about who are Christians, and who are not is somewhat silly, asinine: first and foremost we are Christians because we are corrupt; we are sinners; furthermore, this is what we must remember--I know: there is concupiscence as opposed to actually being sinful in nature, but to follow Christ, we must "prepare the way" so-to-speak, with repentance. I am a sinner; yet, I am a Christian; were I without corruption--I would be God, or in heaven.

[qmvsimp]

Originally Posted by Kristopher

first and foremost we are Christians because we are corrupt; we are sinners;

First and foremost we are humans, made in God's image, we are born sinners since we are born after the original sin. We are not Christians because we're sinners. All humans are sinners whether or not they're Christian.

[Pier]

Originally Posted by Pier

I'm responding to the print in bold.

Most people are Christians - when correctly applied, (I'm not talking about corrupt individuals) - Christianity slights no one.

If we lived as we ought, we would be respectful and helpful to everyone...

Christianity has no need to 'secularize' itself.

[Petergee]

Originally Posted by Kristopher

what you wrote is vague: are you saying, most Americans are Christians; most of the world is populated by Christians; most developed countries are Christian?

Your point: " ... Christianity slights no one. ... ", to me this is a bit laughable, without any real regard for how it is applied--

I think Pier's point is that almost everybody, including conscientious non-Christians who sincerely try to live a moral life and sincerely seek to understand the truth, are followers of Christ whether they realise it or not (and they will realise it in the next life); and that doing something like dating from the birth of Christ does not harm anybody, as even if it "imposes" an awareness of Christ which they otherwise would not have, it is revealing part of the truth to them and acting charitably towards them. Jesus did not "slight" his relatives, any more than a mother "slights" her child when she tells him he can't have a third biscuit. Jesus is acting for their good and showing them the way to salvation and true happiness.

in many Islamic countries: the date is Mohammed's birthdate for their years

Actually it's the date of Mohammed's departure from Mecca and founding of the first Islamic State at Medina, conquering the Jews, pagans and (mostly heretical) Christians who had previously ruled there, when he was aged in his forties

and therefore, it would seem, that a date to coordinate countries involved with the United Nations, for appointments, travel, and plans, etc. should go by some date free of associations with such historical events as concern religion: maybe the date of their own creation, sometime back in the 1940's; though, I understand: the essential basis for the U.N. as a blueprint was something developed to resolve both the thirty years of war, and the 100 years of war between Catholics and the Reformers--all Christian nations should get along; someone submissive to a monarch, once thought. Perhaps the completion of the draft of such a document, should be the date. I have no idea that there was anything just in those wars, particularly on the side of the Catholic Church at the time.

Actually the idea of international law, a UN-type body with authority over national governments to settle disputes etc. was first invented by Catholics in the Middle Ages and carried out by many Popes ever since with many great and good effects. So I guess even if you try to exclude religion from the dating system there will always be a religious basis.

In anycase, your quote about who are Christians, and who are not is somewhat silly, asinine

This is a remarkable comment from someone who lectures others about forum rules and quickly takes offence at perceived insults from others.

[Pier]

Thank you, Petergee.

My apologies, Kristopher.

In an attempt to be less vague, allow me to further explain the meaning of my statements. When Jesus corrected the Samaritan woman, he did it not to insult her, but to correct her sinfulness - which was due to her 'lifestyle choice,' and send her on the right road to Heaven. He did not 'slight' her & ignore her despite their differences, but corrected her out of His love and concern for her & her ultimate well-being...

If we were able to vote on the 'B.C' - 'B.C.E' debate, would it be easier to take the lukewarm road of secularistic political correctness, which ultimately is an insult to our Lord? Or should we consider that the system as it is now, which was not & is not intended as an insult to anybody, is fine as it is - an acknowledgment of the birth of our Lord, Who lived and died out of love for us - sinners all.